My point is, itâs only constructive when itâs an informed discussion. Especially when it's on something as significant as the Treaty.
Politics đłď¸ NZ Politics
- Thread starter wizard of Tauranga
- Start date
NZWarriors.com
I voted for Luxon but think heâs being a pussy on the matter. I also think the other parties are being closed -minded
I donât think Luxon should fall into line behind Seymour but I think he should acknowledge there are issues that need to be out in the open and resolved constructively
There is distrust that govt (current and the most recent) is moving this element of our constitution forward
I donât think Luxon should fall into line behind Seymour but I think he should acknowledge there are issues that need to be out in the open and resolved constructively
There is distrust that govt (current and the most recent) is moving this element of our constitution forward
- Thread starter
- #12,723
I remember back in the old days when men of the house wouldnât discuss things with woman because they wouldnât understand.
NZWarriors.com
You think David Seymour and The Act Party are the right people to lead that conversation?
You can't grasp their ulterior motive or you actually think they have actually acted in good faith on this bill?
Yip, men have always been stupid and never understood womenI remember back in the old days when men of the house wouldnât discuss things with woman because they wouldnât understand.
- Thread starter
- #12,726
As some on here have said if your not mÄori you donât get a sayâŚ
Luxons staying out of it. Itâs politically toxic for him.
Even Labour kept He Puapua hidden and implemented it out of the publicâs eyeâŚ
Last edited:
NZWarriors.com
He had an opportunity to show some leadership and put it in the bin long ago but imo has failed the test miserably - 7*8=42 comes to mind!
Luxon should, but per my earlier comment, he is being a pussy
This is one of those too-hard-basket issues that good leaders are brave enough to address
Muldoon met with Whina Coopers Hikoi on the steps of parliament did the first two minutes of his speech were in Te Reo.
Muldoon...
NZWarriors.com
Fair point, maybe my earlier post weren't very good. Iâm not saying people canât have an opinion. Itâs about recognising that discussions on our constitutional framework need a baseline understanding. Experts in this space matter and they are being shut out.I remember back in the old days when men of the house wouldnât discuss things with woman because they wouldnât understand.
My mind keeps going back to something I read about how the Treaty is often referenced in FTAs to ensure MÄori rights aren't overridden by international trade obligations. The "exception clause" acts as a safe guard from exploitative parts of FTAs. I imagine this is a massive hindrance to some multinationals.
- Thread starter
- #12,732
I think the experts have had a say and itâs the public/ media/ social media disseminating that information which has bypassed Seymour.
I donât think the historical context or the wording of the treaty or what the experts say is actually that important. I think the treaty has its power in what it mean to everyday mÄori as a living document and their willingness to back that with action.
NZWarriors.com
Damn...
MÄori interests
A free trade agreement with the EU will benefit MÄori businesses while protecting their rights.
The Treaty of Waitangi Exception in New Zealandâs Free Trade Agreements (Chapter 11) - Indigenous Peoples and International Trade
Indigenous Peoples and International Trade - June 2020
Never read up on it before but 100% will now.
I certainly think Seymour has misunderstood the mood of the country. But I also think he's playing the long game, with a strategy to further sideline National in 2026 over their lack of support for this bill.
I think your completely minimising the power of the Treaty in legal context. Its historical and legal significance is just as important as its meaning to mÄori as a living document.
NZWarriors.com
- Thread starter
- #12,736
What I mean is if mÄori werenât willing to defend it then it would have slid into irrelevance and been legally superseded.
Itâs power comes from the people behind it as Seymour is finding out.
No wonder the left cant pick political shifts. The chamber echoes loudly. You label any speech you disgree with an "ism" and then promptly ignore it. There's zero introspection as to why people feel that why.
As for condemning the "racist" comment above, if only some people held that same energy for helping.
The unemployment rates for MÄori have increased by more than 4 times the national rate. In figures released yesterday from Statistics New Zealand, unemployment rates for MÄori hit a four-year high of 8.2%, up by 1.4%. Similarly, rates for Pacific peoples have surged by 1.5% to reach 7.4%. In comparison, the national unemployment rate has risen by 0.3%, reaching 4.3% in the quarter ending March 2024.
MÄori unemployment rate increases by more than four-times national rates
In figures released yesterday from Statistics New Zealand, unemployment rates for MÄori hit a four-year high of 8.2%, up by 1.4%
www.nzdoctor.co.nz
That's right Wiz, you don't hear Afghan women complaining do yaI remember back in the old days when men of the house wouldnât discuss things with woman because they wouldnât understand.
NZWarriors.com
An opinion piece by Simon Wilson
Why the Treaty bill breaches Actâs own principles
Itâs 21 years since American novelist Toni Morrison won the Nobel Prize for Literature and almost 50 years since she told an audience in Portland, Oregon: âThe function, the very serious function of racism is distraction. It keeps you from doing your work. It keeps you explaining, over and over again, your reason for being.â
Thatâs what David Seymourâs Treaty Principles Bill is doing right now and will continue doing for at least the next six months.
How does that bill sit with the Act Party, whose founding principles include respect for contract law, property law and the rule of law in general?
The scope of the Treaty of Waitangi is far grander than its narrow legal status. But as has been noted by more than 40 kingâs counsels and former Prime Minister Dame Jenny Shipley, Actâs bill fails on basic legal grounds just as much as it does on harder-to-define cultural and social ones.
The fact is, the Treaty is a contract. It explicitly recognises property rights.
Itâs true MÄori and PÄkehÄ had different understandings of what âpropertyâ meant in 1840. But in relation to Seymourâs bill, thatâs neither here nor there. In this contract, the Crown committed to upholding what it understood to be the property rights of MÄori.
That is not in dispute.
Now, Act wants the Crown to walk away from its commitment.
If this was a good-faith debate about a problem with the contract, as Act claims, we wouldnât be going about it like this. The process would start with good-faith dialogue between the descendants of the Treaty signatories. Thatâs the Crown on one side and iwi and hapu on the other.
If the issue really was how to build a cohesive society by safeguarding the democratic rights of all citizens, as Act claims, the same would apply.
But Act didnât do that. Instead, it wants one party to the contract â the Crown â to rewrite the deal to suit itself.
In practice, this is what Sir George Grey did. He secured more land for settlers by ignoring the understanding of the Treaty that had prevailed on both sides when it was signed. That caused the wars of the 1860s and eventually led to the long, ongoing process of redress we now know as the work of the Waitangi Tribunal.
Why is the Act Party set on a course that ignores contract law and property rights?
Because it doesnât really care about property rights? I bet it does.
Or because it doesnât care about the property rights of iwi and hapĹŤ? So much for the âone law for allâ principle it pretends to be upholding with its Treaty bill.
Why is it doing this? Because during the six months of select committee hearings, Seymour will be able to tour the country building his party base among everyone who thinks MÄori have been allowed to âget away with too muchâ.
As for Christopher Luxon, how is it that the coalition agreement is an inviolable contract, but the Treaty of Waitangi is not? Heâs a fool for getting the country into this mess.
What should he do now? Enable six months of chaos, or pull the plug: honour this commitment, or that one? Either option will cause an uproar.
The best thing is to do the right thing. Over time, it will become the only defensible position and itâs also, plainly, in the best interests of the country. Thereâs a principle to stand solid on.
Meanwhile, the distraction of racism. Thereâs so much work to do, in economic development, healthcare, housing, education, workersâ rights, the environment, welfare support, making the culture bloom, building the community that can sustain it all. So many people are hard at work doing all that. And this distraction undermines it all.
Which, as Toni Morrison said, is the point.
Why the Treaty bill breaches Actâs own principles
Itâs 21 years since American novelist Toni Morrison won the Nobel Prize for Literature and almost 50 years since she told an audience in Portland, Oregon: âThe function, the very serious function of racism is distraction. It keeps you from doing your work. It keeps you explaining, over and over again, your reason for being.â
Thatâs what David Seymourâs Treaty Principles Bill is doing right now and will continue doing for at least the next six months.
How does that bill sit with the Act Party, whose founding principles include respect for contract law, property law and the rule of law in general?
The scope of the Treaty of Waitangi is far grander than its narrow legal status. But as has been noted by more than 40 kingâs counsels and former Prime Minister Dame Jenny Shipley, Actâs bill fails on basic legal grounds just as much as it does on harder-to-define cultural and social ones.
The fact is, the Treaty is a contract. It explicitly recognises property rights.
Itâs true MÄori and PÄkehÄ had different understandings of what âpropertyâ meant in 1840. But in relation to Seymourâs bill, thatâs neither here nor there. In this contract, the Crown committed to upholding what it understood to be the property rights of MÄori.
That is not in dispute.
Now, Act wants the Crown to walk away from its commitment.
If this was a good-faith debate about a problem with the contract, as Act claims, we wouldnât be going about it like this. The process would start with good-faith dialogue between the descendants of the Treaty signatories. Thatâs the Crown on one side and iwi and hapu on the other.
If the issue really was how to build a cohesive society by safeguarding the democratic rights of all citizens, as Act claims, the same would apply.
But Act didnât do that. Instead, it wants one party to the contract â the Crown â to rewrite the deal to suit itself.
In practice, this is what Sir George Grey did. He secured more land for settlers by ignoring the understanding of the Treaty that had prevailed on both sides when it was signed. That caused the wars of the 1860s and eventually led to the long, ongoing process of redress we now know as the work of the Waitangi Tribunal.
Why is the Act Party set on a course that ignores contract law and property rights?
Because it doesnât really care about property rights? I bet it does.
Or because it doesnât care about the property rights of iwi and hapĹŤ? So much for the âone law for allâ principle it pretends to be upholding with its Treaty bill.
Why is it doing this? Because during the six months of select committee hearings, Seymour will be able to tour the country building his party base among everyone who thinks MÄori have been allowed to âget away with too muchâ.
As for Christopher Luxon, how is it that the coalition agreement is an inviolable contract, but the Treaty of Waitangi is not? Heâs a fool for getting the country into this mess.
What should he do now? Enable six months of chaos, or pull the plug: honour this commitment, or that one? Either option will cause an uproar.
The best thing is to do the right thing. Over time, it will become the only defensible position and itâs also, plainly, in the best interests of the country. Thereâs a principle to stand solid on.
Meanwhile, the distraction of racism. Thereâs so much work to do, in economic development, healthcare, housing, education, workersâ rights, the environment, welfare support, making the culture bloom, building the community that can sustain it all. So many people are hard at work doing all that. And this distraction undermines it all.
Which, as Toni Morrison said, is the point.
Is Seymour's position informed? Is there any counter-factual expert you would consider informed?
